Chrystia Freeland: There’s a great joke on Wall Street which is that the bet
on Romney is Wall Street’s worst bet since the bet on subprime. But I found
the hostility towards Obama astonishing. ... On that Tuesday, the big Romney
backers I was talking to were sure he was going to win. They were all flying
into Logan Airport for the victory party. There’s this stunned feeling of
how could we be so wrong, and a feeling of alienation.

The Romney comments to his donors,... I think they accurately reflected the
view of a lot of these money guys. It’s the continuation of this 47 percent
idea. They believe that Obama has been shoring up the entitlement society,
and if you give enough entitlements to enough people, they’ll vote for you.

EK: Here’s my question about those comments. Romney was promising the very
rich either a huge tax cut or, if you believe he would’ve paid for every
dime and dollar of his cut, protection from any tax increases. He was
promising financiers that he would roll back Dodd-Frank and Sarbanex-Oxley.
He was promising current seniors that he wouldn’t touch their benefit. How
are these not “gifts”?

CF: Let me be clear that I’m not defending any of them. But I think the way
it works — and I think Romney’s comments were very telling in this regard — ...they’re
absolutely convinced that they’re not asking for special privileges for
themselves. They’re convinced that it just so happens that their
self-interest coincides perfectly with the collective interest. That’s where
you get this idea of the “job creators”. ... If you’ve developed an ideology
that what’s good for you personally also happens to be good for everyone
else, that’s quite wonderful because there’s no moral tension. ...

EK: ... From my reporting with the White House, I think the president’s view
of the economy is that globalization is here and it’s not going away. The
economy rewards high skills more than ever. Automatic and computerization
and foreign competition are wiping out many middle class jobs, and while
some new ones are created, it’s not at all clear that enough are being
created. But in his view, he sees more redistribution as very necessary in
this context. He thinks that if the economy is going to grow but the gains
won’t be broadly shared, then it’s the government’s role to try and
redistribute some, though of course not all, or even most, of those gains.

My experience is that the very rich are open to higher taxes in the context
of a deficit deal. ... But they don’t like the idea that their money should
be redistributed simply because they have too much of it. They don’t like
the idea that, so to speak, they didn’t build all of this, and as such, they
need to give back in order to make sure it continues. ... They see it as
punishing their success.

Chrystia Freeland: There’s a great joke on Wall Street which is that the bet
on Romney is Wall Street’s worst bet since the bet on subprime. But I found
the hostility towards Obama astonishing. ... On that Tuesday, the big Romney
backers I was talking to were sure he was going to win. They were all flying
into Logan Airport for the victory party. There’s this stunned feeling of
how could we be so wrong, and a feeling of alienation.

The Romney comments to his donors,... I think they accurately reflected the
view of a lot of these money guys. It’s the continuation of this 47 percent
idea. They believe that Obama has been shoring up the entitlement society,
and if you give enough entitlements to enough people, they’ll vote for you.

EK: Here’s my question about those comments. Romney was promising the very
rich either a huge tax cut or, if you believe he would’ve paid for every
dime and dollar of his cut, protection from any tax increases. He was
promising financiers that he would roll back Dodd-Frank and Sarbanex-Oxley.
He was promising current seniors that he wouldn’t touch their benefit. How
are these not “gifts”?

CF: Let me be clear that I’m not defending any of them. But I think the way
it works — and I think Romney’s comments were very telling in this regard — ...they’re
absolutely convinced that they’re not asking for special privileges for
themselves. They’re convinced that it just so happens that their
self-interest coincides perfectly with the collective interest. That’s where
you get this idea of the “job creators”. ... If you’ve developed an ideology
that what’s good for you personally also happens to be good for everyone
else, that’s quite wonderful because there’s no moral tension. ...

EK: ... From my reporting with the White House, I think the president’s view
of the economy is that globalization is here and it’s not going away. The
economy rewards high skills more than ever. Automatic and computerization
and foreign competition are wiping out many middle class jobs, and while
some new ones are created, it’s not at all clear that enough are being
created. But in his view, he sees more redistribution as very necessary in
this context. He thinks that if the economy is going to grow but the gains
won’t be broadly shared, then it’s the government’s role to try and
redistribute some, though of course not all, or even most, of those gains.

My experience is that the very rich are open to higher taxes in the context
of a deficit deal. ... But they don’t like the idea that their money should
be redistributed simply because they have too much of it. They don’t like
the idea that, so to speak, they didn’t build all of this, and as such, they
need to give back in order to make sure it continues. ... They see it as
punishing their success.